The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[bubbles4ksu]

i did not know that record drought in syria was a factor in the civil war. the dystopian "water wars" are already here.

http://globalthinkers.foreignpolicy.com/#naturals/detail/extreme-heights

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

i did not know that record drought in syria was a factor in the civil war. the dystopian "water wars" are already here.

http://globalthinkers.foreignpolicy.com/#naturals/detail/extreme-heights

But doesn't that mean they are getting more water somewhere else, like Alaska? Even Steven kind of weather?

[bubbles4ksu]

i did not know that record drought in syria was a factor in the civil war. the dystopian "water wars" are already here.

http://globalthinkers.foreignpolicy.com/#naturals/detail/extreme-heights

But doesn't that mean they are getting more water somewhere else, like Alaska? Even Steven kind of weather?

prolly, but idk if they are getting an associated human catastrophe.

[sonofdaxjones]

Did NOAA really conclude that the California drought has been caused by naturally occurring climatic and oceanographic events?

That has to hurt the activist "Scientists". 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Did NOAA really conclude that the California drought has been caused by naturally occurring climatic and oceanographic events?

That has to hurt the activist "Scientists".

NOAA are the activist scientists, though. We need to dig deeper and figure out what their end game really is.

[sonofdaxjones]

Did NOAA really conclude that the California drought has been caused by naturally occurring climatic and oceanographic events?

That has to hurt the activist "Scientists".

NOAA are the activist scientists, though. We need to dig deeper and figure out what their end game really is.

I know they are, they even quoted a prof from Columbia who said that weather records have captured multiple periods of extreme drought in California.    Poor guy is probably never going to get a climatic or weather related paper peer reviewed again by the fraternity of activist "scientists". 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Maybe the activist scientists are all in on it and this is one big bait and switch.

[renocat]

They will get a new model.  We went from global warming to climate change.  Next will be hey its going to hell quickly climate calamity. 

[brandochav]

They will get a new model.  We went from global warming to climate change.  Next will be hey its going to hell quickly climate calamity.

You now nothing, John Snow...just because buzz words spread through the media and lay men, doesn't mean the research jargon did the same.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

"Research jargon"

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

It's like the old Kansas weather saying, "if you don't like the research jargon, just wait a few minutes, it will change."

[sonofdaxjones]

"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

[Rage Against the McKee]

"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!    It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that is has been "proven" "theoretically"? Or that is has been "proven" in a controlled environment? Its application to the real world certainly hasn't been proven at all - and that's what actually matters, right? In fact, it seems to be more and more disproven with each passing year as more and more "greenhouse gasses" are emitted and yet global temp increase has flatlined over more than a decade.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that is has been "proven" "theoretically"? Or that is has been "proven" in a controlled environment? Its application to the real world certainly hasn't been proven at all - and that's what actually matters, right? In fact, it seems to be more and more disproven with each passing year as more and more "greenhouse gasses" are emitted and yet global temp increase has flatlined over more than a decade.

I don't think you understand what a scientific theory is. This sounds similar to a creationist saying evolution is just a theory.

[Rage Against the McKee]

"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!    It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

[CNS]

"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!    It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

Just stop.  Unless you can show that caring will save them money, it won't work.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that is has been "proven" "theoretically"? Or that is has been "proven" in a controlled environment? Its application to the real world certainly hasn't been proven at all - and that's what actually matters, right? In fact, it seems to be more and more disproven with each passing year as more and more "greenhouse gasses" are emitted and yet global temp increase has flatlined over more than a decade.

I don't think you understand what a scientific theory is. This sounds similar to a creationist saying evolution is just a theory.

Now you're just trolling, and you haven't answered my questions.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!    It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

Ok, so you're talking purely about theory then, and not real world effect. Gotcha.

[Rage Against the McKee]

"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!    It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

Ok, so you're talking purely about theory then, and not real world effect. Gotcha.

The real world effect is that we don't melt during the daytime and get frozen solid at night. Life would not exist if the greenhouse effect weren't real. You know, acknowledging proven science, but saying that the effect of this extra carbon in the air is not severe enough to justify the measures necessary to address it is a perfectly reasonable stance. Sticking your head in the sand and claiming that the science is wrong just makes you look dumb, though.

[CNS]

Totally leaving out the part where coal is clean now and Jesus wants us to dominate the face off of Earth.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!    It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

Ok, so you're talking purely about theory then, and not real world effect. Gotcha.

The real world effect is that we don't melt during the daytime and get frozen solid at night. Life would not exist if the greenhouse effect weren't real. You know, acknowledging proven science, but saying that the effect of this extra carbon in the air is not severe enough to justify the measures necessary to address it is a perfectly reasonable stance. Sticking your head in the sand and claiming that the science is wrong just makes you look dumb, though.

That's exactly what I say. I also think that "greenhouse effect is proven science" is a meaningless retort, for the exact reason you've just explained. Climate is a complicated thing. There are obviously much bigger forces at work in determining global temperture than levels of trace gasses in our atmosphere. If there weren't, then we'd be living in an Algore apocalypse right now.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!    It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

How do you measure heat to determine the earth is warmer?

[Rage Against the McKee]

"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!    It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

How do you measure heat to determine the earth is warmer?

Warmer than what? If you want to see if the earth is warmer than it was yesterday, you take a temperature and compare it to yesterday's temperature. If you want to see the effect greenhouse gases are having on the temperature, you measure the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and solar radiation and then apply greenhouse gas theory.